AditiKraft/Krafter

Executive summary

AditiKraft/Krafter scores 49 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while seven of its eight lenses score higher still: Event-Driven at 100, rated Exemplary, Performance at 74 and Code Health at 67, both rated Strong, and Security and Compliance at 65, Architecture at 62, Accessibility at 55 and Maturity at 53, all rated Adequate. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those seven because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 39 and is rated Adequate. Its REDACTED Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 49 to about 57.

26 findings are critical: nine in Explicit Debt, six in Static Analysis (SAST), five in Secrets (history), four in REDACTED Scanning and two in Project dependency cycles.

Watchdog couldn't measure Dependency Hygiene and Runtime accessibility in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 9,697 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €33,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 67 Strong Architecture 62 Adequate, capped by Slice cohesion Maturity 53 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation and Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 39 Adequate, capped by REDACTED Scanning, DR & Backup and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 65 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) Event-Driven 100 ★ Exemplary Accessibility 55 Adequate, capped by Keyboard semantics Performance 74 Strong

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 39 · counts for 45%Maturity 53 · counts for 25%Accessibility 55 · counts for 14%Architecture 62 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 65 · counts for 4%Code Health 67 · counts for 2%Performance 74 · counts for 1%Event-Driven 100 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 39 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 49 to about 57.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 25%Supporting code 40%Tests 20%Generated by tools 15%

Rebuild cost: about €33,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€11,000 to €56,000, for 181 to 585 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Very high, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 49. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 9,697 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Raises the score by about 7 points · Medium effort · DR & Backup

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Outbound HTTP resilience

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €33,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 39 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for low effort, because it clears the 4 REDACTED Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

69 modules, with 143 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 9 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 29 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Backend.Common	2 Backend.Common.Auth	3 Backend.Features	4 Backend.Infrastructure.Jobs	5 Backend.Web	6 Contracts.Common.Auth	7 Contracts.Common.Enums	8 Contracts.Contracts.Auth	9 Contracts.Common	10 Contracts.Common.Models	12 Backend.Web.Configuration	13 Contracts.Contracts.Roles	14 Contracts.Contracts.Tenants	15 Contracts.Contracts.Users	16 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Services	17 Backend.Features.Auth.Common	18 UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth	19 UI.Web.Client.Features.Roles	21 UI.Web.Client.Features.Users	22 Backend.Infrastructure.Persistence	25 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth	26 Backend.Features.Roles.Common	29 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.SignalR	32 Backend.Features.Tenants.Common	34 Backend.Common.Tenants	35 Backend.Features.Users.Common	38 Backend.Common.Entities
1 Backend.Common
2 Backend.Common.Auth
3 Backend.Features
4 Backend.Infrastructure.Jobs
5 Backend.Web
6 Contracts.Common.Auth
7 Contracts.Common.Enums
8 Contracts.Contracts.Auth
9 Contracts.Common							1
10 Contracts.Common.Models							4
11 Backend.Features.AppInfo			1		1					1
12 Backend.Web.Configuration									1
13 Contracts.Contracts.Roles										1
14 Contracts.Contracts.Tenants									1	1
15 Contracts.Contracts.Users										1
16 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Services										2
17 Backend.Features.Auth.Common	1					1		2		2	1									1						3	1
18 UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth								5	1	1					1						2
19 UI.Web.Client.Features.Roles										6		6			2
20 UI.Web.Client.Features.Tenants									1	6			6		2
21 UI.Web.Client.Features.Users										8				13	5
22 Backend.Infrastructure.Persistence		1														1								1	1	1
23 UI.Web.Client.Features.Roles.Common										6		2			2			2
24 UI.Web.Client.Features.Users.Common										5				1	2				2
25 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth								11		4					2		1
26 Backend.Features.Roles.Common																				1					1	3	2
27 Backend.Features.Tenants		1	1		1				1	1			1							1
28 Backend.Migrations				1																2
29 UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.SignalR															1						2
30 UI.Web.Infrastructure.Auth						1		5		2							1				3
31 Backend.Features.Roles			1		1					1		1								1		2
32 Backend.Features.Tenants.Common			1	1					1	1			1							2		1			1	1
33 UI.Web.Client.Common.Components.Layout										1					4						4		2
34 Backend.Common.Tenants										4														1
35 Backend.Features.Users.Common	2			1						4				2						3		3		1	1		3
36 Backend.Infrastructure.Persistence.Tenants										1										1				1	1
37 Backend.Web.Middleware		3							1																2
38 Backend.Common.Entities							1																			2
39 Backend.Features.Auth			1		2			2		1						1				1		1				1
40 Backend.Features.Users		1	1	1	1					1				1											1	1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.5 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.8 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 8.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 7.6 X1 · Repo Async correctness 7.5 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 6.7 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 6.9 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 7.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 7.8

The Bad

D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 5.4

At a glance — Architecture · 62% · Adequate · gated by AX7 ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 7.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 8.3 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.9 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

The Ugly

AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 1.0

At a glance — Maturity · 53% · Adequate · gated by M2, M4 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.2 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Adequate · gated by D13, P5, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 8.6 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P2 · Repo Observability 9.3 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 65% · Adequate · gated by D29 ·

The Good

D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0

The Bad

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 5.0 C4 · Repo Data Retention 6.5 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 5.2

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 0.7

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 55% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

The Good

AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 10.0 AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 10.0 AC3 · Repo Page structure 6.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 10.0

The Bad

AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

The Ugly

AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 1.0

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 7.3 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	38	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	10	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the four leaked secrets in configuration and source files, then codify disaster recovery by defining RTO/RPO targets and documenting restore procedures within your infrastructure as code. Strengthen system stability by adding resilience policies and timeouts to all outbound HTTP clients to prevent dependency failures from taking down the application. Finally, correct documentation inaccuracies by aligning the README and configuration guides with the actual codebase, and begin recording key architectural decisions in a dedicated ADR folder to preserve design context.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.	+8.5 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+6.7 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README.md runs `dotnet run --project aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj`, but `aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj` does not exist; docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `RemoteHostUrl`, but no code or configuration file names `RemoteHostUrl`; docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `AllowedCorsDomains`, but no code or configuration file names `AllowedCorsDomains`.	+1.8 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.	+1.5 pts	Medium	Keyboard semantics
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+1.4 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+1.4 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 77 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 14% mixed · 86% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	3.9	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Routes.razor	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src-single/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs	6.1	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 26

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 191

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 48

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 3

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 81 of 87 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 87 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D34D35D44AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX7AX8C2C3C4ED1ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P4P5P6P7P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 246 of 265 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16259-d3f8-7615-8a19-af9efb81a09c.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (2 contributor(s) across 289 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 1 hold 0% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator/ApiDbInitializer.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Errors/AppException.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+77 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via AspireAppHost (aspire-single/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.AppHost/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.AppHost.csproj). the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence.
P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 30 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 70.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.5 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Handler.UpdateAsync at 23. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being CorsConfiguration.IsOriginAllowed at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs (CorsConfiguration.IsOriginAllowed at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

Handler.UpdateAsync (cyclomatic 23)REDACTED:26

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Handler.UpdateAsync (cyclomatic 23). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.5 to about 10.0/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Handler.UpdateAsync at 29.

Handler.UpdateAsync (cognitive 29)REDACTED:26

DataSeedService.SeedBasicData (cognitive 28)src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:27

GoogleCallback.OnInitializedAsync (cognitive 25)src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Auth/GoogleCallback.razor.cs:12

ExceptionMiddleware.InvokeAsync (cognitive 24)src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:14

ThemeManager.OnSystemThemeChanged (cognitive 18)src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ThemeManager.cs:57

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 6 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Handler.UpdateAsync (cognitive 29), DataSeedService.SeedBasicData (cognitive 28), GoogleCallback.OnInitializedAsync (cognitive 25). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 6 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 8.8 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

25 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:34

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:46

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:12

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×2src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Entities/CommonEntityProperty.cs:46

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2REDACTED:35

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AuthStorageServiceServer.cs, Tenant.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DataSeedService.cs, Roles.razor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs, ApplicationRole.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: AditiKraft.Krafter.Contractssrc/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts.csproj:1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 48 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

93 test methods: 93 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 93 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 1 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: every package graded here is one this repository's MSBuild projects declare as a direct `PackageReference` (53 declared), and nothing beyond them was reached — this is the DECLARATION-SITE set, NOT the transitive closure. .NET has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry and this pass grades an unrestored tree, so a banned licence that only a direct dependency's OWN dependencies pull in is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: REDACTED (6×23=138); src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs (2×17=34)

Hotspot: REDACTED · ×2REDACTED:26

What to do

Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with REDACTED, CorsConfiguration.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

17 deducted debt markers + 35 dead symbols across 9651 LoC in the .NET projects (2.3/KLoC) → score 5.4.

NoWarnInCsproj — 6 warning codes suppressed in one element · ×5build/_build.csproj:7

WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×2src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:27

EmptyCatchBlock · ×2src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:162

Dead code: GitHubActions · ×35build/Build.cs:47

CommentedOutCode · ×2aspire/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:93

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj (3), _build.csproj, AditiKraft.Krafter.Templates.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with TokenService.cs, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ApiCallService.cs, Routes.razor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 projects, 250 source files, 12913 hand-written lines of code (9651 production / 3262 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 2393 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 14 inter-project edges.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README is a clear, well-structured guide for a .NET 10 full-stack project template called Krafter. It begins with an engaging branding image and a one-line summary ('A modern .NET 10 full-stack project template...'), then links to .NET/Blazor/License badges and a step-by-step install-and-create flow, followed by a detailed Template Variants table and a phased roadmap for naming simplification. The document is also split across two well-organized sub-documents (Project Simplification Roadmap and URL Configuration) that cover the project's purpose, hosting options, local development setup, and deployment guidance. It is complete, clear, and well-structured.

XML-doc coverage: _build · ×8build/_build.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 API inconsistencies across 58 exposed types.

The non-generic `Response` type lacks a `Data` property and its `Success` method does not accept a payload. This forces consumers to use `Response<object>` or `Response<string>` for simple success cases without data, or creates a confusing split where generic responses carry data and non-generic ones do not, despite having identical error handling structures.

Ambiguous naming in `RouteSegment`. `UserRoles` and `RolePermissions` are compound nouns describing relationships, while `Permissions` is a singular resource noun. It is unclear if `Permissions` refers to the list of all permissions, a specific permission lookup, or the same endpoint as `RolePermissions`. Similarly, `ByRole` is vague compared to `UserRoles`.

What to do

Resolve the 1 The non-generic `Response` type lacks a `Data` property and its… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Ambiguous naming in `RouteSegment`. `UserRoles` and `RolePermissions`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

80 valuable / 1 redundant across 189 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:224

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 12 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

93 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.7 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

38 finding(s): 0 critical, 6 high, 32 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 82 file(s) — `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator/ApiDbInitializer.cs` (lines 13–16, line 17), `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Errors/AppException.cs` (lines 5–6, lines 7–9, lines 16–22), `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs` (line 19, line 20, line 21, …), `REDACTED` (line 95, lines 100–102, line 182), `REDACTED` (line 17, line 22, lines 23–24, …), … (+77 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 82 of those file(s) — `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator/ApiDbInitializer.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Errors/AppException.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+77 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 1 of those file(s) — `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Errors/AppException.cs` — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything.

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 64 of the 213 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 12 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This layout renders the routed page body, so it is where the landmark belongs: wrap @Body in <main>. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor:4

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor:182

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 28 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

The namespaces AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Entities ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Auth.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Roles.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Users.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants → AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common (AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants.ITenantFinderService → AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common.Tenant, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Tenants/ITenantFinderService.cs:1
The namespaces AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth → AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth (AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth.ClientAuthApiService → AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth.IAuthApi, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/ClientAuthApiService.cs:3

What to do

Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX7 · Slice cohesion1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

`ITokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/ITokenService.cs:10
`TokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:20
`TokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `IUserService` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:22
`ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:98
`ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — REDACTED:99
`ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:153
`Login` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:18
`RefreshToken` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:24
`ApplicationRole` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:13
`ApplicationRole` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:32
`ApplicationRoleClaim` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9
`DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:24
`DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:25
`DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:54
`DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationRoleClaim` from slice 'Roles'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:66
`DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:145
`DeleteTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:27
`UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:36
`UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:98
`UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `IUserMutationService` from slice 'Users'. — REDACTED:99
`ApplicationUserRole` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserRole.cs:20
`UserMutationService` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/UserMutationService.cs:18
`UserMutationService` (slice 'Users') depends on `Tenant` from slice 'Tenants'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/UserMutationService.cs:126
`SeedDataConstants` (slice 'Users') depends on `Tenant` from slice 'Tenants'. — REDACTED:39
`UserService` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — REDACTED:53
`GetUserPermissions` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs:19
`GetUserRoles` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'. — REDACTED:19

What to do

Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C4 · Data Retention6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).

Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.

A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob), a documented retention period / data-expiry.

What to do

Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency8.6 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

`Roles.Handler.UpdatePermissionsAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — REDACTED:21
`Users.Handler.CreateAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save one hop away, in UserMutationService.CreateAsync) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — REDACTED:16
`Users.Handler.ForgotPasswordAsync` mutates persistent state (a repository write one hop away, in JobService.EnqueueAsync) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ForgotPassword.cs:22

What to do

Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`GetAppInfoAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — REDACTED:27
`OnAfterRenderAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor.cs:38
`OnInitializedAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/Notifications.razor.cs:12
`ParseApiErrorAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:121
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×6) — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Auth/ICurrentUser.cs:13, REDACTED:59, src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Jobs/JobsConfiguration.cs:20, …
A placeholder e-mail address ("admin@example.com") is still in shipped code — its domain is reserved for documentation, so anything sent here is undeliverable by construction. Replace it with the real address, or take it from configuration. — REDACTED:26
`OnOpen` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/Notifications.razor.cs:14

What to do

Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

Add a README to the 11 of 12 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy2.0 / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:100
README.md runs `dotnet run --project aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj`, but `aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:30
docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `RemoteHostUrl`, but no code or configuration file names `RemoteHostUrl`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/url-configuration.md:164
docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `AllowedCorsDomains`, but no code or configuration file names `AllowedCorsDomains`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/url-configuration.md:168

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README.md runs `dotnet run --project aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj`, but `aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj` does not exist; docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `RemoteHostUrl`, but no code or configuration file names `RemoteHostUrl`; docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `AllowedCorsDomains`, but no code or configuration file names `AllowedCorsDomains`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

58/58 types (100%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Only 7/9 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 9, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
`src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/SignalR/SignalRService.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 69 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/SignalR/SignalRService.cs:69

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Replace `Console.Write…` in service code with the project's injected `ILogger<T>` (message templates with named properties), so delivery outcomes and failures reach the log pipeline with a level and a category.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — build/Build.cs:144
`new HttpClient { BaseAddress = new Uri(builder.HostEnvironment.BaseAddress) }` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Program.cs:14

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 32 use(s) across 12,354 production line(s) (~2.6/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

`RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/ConfigureBlazorJwtBearerOptions.cs:29
`ValidateAudience`, `ValidateIssuer`, `ValidateLifetime` are all set to `false`, which means a token minted for a DIFFERENT relying party is accepted here. Any other service that trusts the same issuer can have its tokens replayed against this one, which is precisely what the `Audience` value exists to prevent. — REDACTED:76
None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. (×3) — REDACTED:11, src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Program.cs:13, REDACTED:11

What to do

Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
Re-enable token validation — `ValidateAudience` is set to `false`. If it was switched off because the expected value was wrong or absent, supply that value instead (`ValidAudiences`/`ValidIssuers`, or `IssuerSigningKeys`/`IssuerSigningKeyResolver` for the signature) rather than skipping the check: a disabled check accepts every token, not just the one that was failing.
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

`async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/CreateOrUpdateUser.razor.cs:43

What to do

async void method: Submit

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation6.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 57/124 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on. (×12) — REDACTED:89, REDACTED:96, REDACTED:169, …
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×27) — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:8, src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:83, src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:136, …

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

`htmlMessage` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Notifications/EmailService.cs:14

What to do

Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling6.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:162

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:30

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

This method contradicts itself about `permissions`: line 91 writes `permissions?.Data`, which says `permissions` can be null, but line 86 then dereferences it directly as `permissions.IsError` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `permissions` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `permissions` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — REDACTED:86
9/11 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
~1.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 78 suppression(s) across the 70393 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

Where a method uses `?.` on a symbol and then dereferences it directly, settle the question once: test it before the first use and handle null, or drop the `?.`.
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	67%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	62%	Adequate — gated by AX7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	53%	Adequate — gated by M2, M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	39%	Adequate — gated by D13, P5, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	65%	Adequate — gated by D29	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Accessibility	55%	Adequate — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	74%	Strong	Solid.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.

Not included — 35 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (9,651 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 82 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
ED4 Outbox / dual-write — no persistence writes or publishes observed in handlers — atomicity not assessable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X8 JS interop contract — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 26 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×5

NoWarnInCsproj — 6 warning codes suppressed in one element build/_build.csproj:7 — A single <NoWarn> suppresses 6 warning codes (CS0649;CS0169;CA1050;CA1822;CA2211;IDE1006) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 6 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj AditiKraft.Krafter.Templates.csproj:27 — NU5128 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed src-single/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj:8 — NU1903 — this is not a style rule being switched off: it is the dependency audit reporting that a package this project references has a KNOWN, already-published security vulnerability, and the entry deletes that report for the whole project — for this package and for every dependency the project takes from here on, including ones added long after whoever wrote the line has moved on. Nothing in the build will raise it again, so the next reader has no way to learn it was ever accepted. Upgrade the package to a version carrying the fix, or replace it, and drop the code from the list. Where the fix genuinely does not exist yet, keep the report and stop it FAILING the build — demote it to a warning without silencing it — and write down which advisory is being accepted and until when, so it is the acceptance that expires rather than the alert.
NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed src-single/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj:8 — NU1902 — this is not a style rule being switched off: it is the dependency audit reporting that a package this project references has a KNOWN, already-published security vulnerability, and the entry deletes that report for the whole project — for this package and for every dependency the project takes from here on, including ones added long after whoever wrote the line has moved on. Nothing in the build will raise it again, so the next reader has no way to learn it was ever accepted. Upgrade the package to a version carrying the fix, or replace it, and drop the code from the list. Where the fix genuinely does not exist yet, keep the report and stop it FAILING the build — demote it to a warning without silencing it — and write down which advisory is being accepted and until when, so it is the acceptance that expires rather than the alert.
NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed src-single/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj:8 — NU1901 — this is not a style rule being switched off: it is the dependency audit reporting that a package this project references has a KNOWN, already-published security vulnerability, and the entry deletes that report for the whole project — for this package and for every dependency the project takes from here on, including ones added long after whoever wrote the line has moved on. Nothing in the build will raise it again, so the next reader has no way to learn it was ever accepted. Upgrade the package to a version carrying the fix, or replace it, and drop the code from the list. Where the fix genuinely does not exist yet, keep the report and stop it FAILING the build — demote it to a warning without silencing it — and write down which advisory is being accepted and until when, so it is the acceptance that expires rather than the alert.

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×2

Namespace dependency cycle src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Tenants/ITenantFinderService.cs:1 — The namespaces AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Entities ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Auth.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Roles.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Users.Common ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants → AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common (AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Common.Tenants.ITenantFinderService → AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Features.Tenants.Common.Tenant, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/ClientAuthApiService.cs:3 — The namespaces AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth ↔ AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth → AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth (AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Infrastructure.Auth.ClientAuthApiService → AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.Features.Auth.IAuthApi, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.

D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×2

WriteOnlyPrivateField src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:27 — private SecuritySettings _securitySettings — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField REDACTED:25 — private JwtSettings _jwtSettings — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×2

EmptyCatchBlock src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:162 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Routes.razor:70 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 191 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×35

Dead code: GitHubActions build/Build.cs:47 — Property GitHubActions — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including _build, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: Compile build/Build.cs:79 — Property Compile — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including _build, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: IsInRole src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Auth/ICurrentUser.cs:17 — Method IsInRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetUserClaims src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Auth/ICurrentUser.cs:19 — Method GetUserClaims — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: IRecordState src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Entities/IRecordState.cs:5 — NamedType IRecordState — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetOrigin src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Extensions/RequestExtensions.cs:7 — Method GetOrigin — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: CreateRole REDACTED:14 — NamedType CreateRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteRole REDACTED:16 — NamedType DeleteRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetRoleById REDACTED:15 — NamedType GetRoleById — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetRoleByIdWithPermissions REDACTED:17 — NamedType GetRoleByIdWithPermissions — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetRoles REDACTED:17 — NamedType GetRoles — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteTenant REDACTED:14 — NamedType DeleteTenant — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: SeedBasicData REDACTED:10 — NamedType SeedBasicData — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: QueryStringKeys REDACTED:13 — NamedType QueryStringKeys — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteUser REDACTED:14 — NamedType DeleteUser — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: ForgotPassword src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ForgotPassword.cs:15 — NamedType ForgotPassword — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetUserPermissions src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs:15 — NamedType GetUserPermissions — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetUserRoles REDACTED:15 — NamedType GetUserRoles — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetUsers REDACTED:17 — NamedType GetUsers — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetUsersByRole REDACTED:16 — NamedType GetUsersByRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: ResetPassword src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ResetPassword.cs:11 — NamedType ResetPassword — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: CanUseTenantIdentifier src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/AppUrls.cs:128 — Method CanUseTenantIdentifier — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetPhoneNumber src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Extensions/AuthExtensions.cs:23 — Method GetPhoneNumber — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetExpiration src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Extensions/AuthExtensions.cs:32 — Method GetExpiration — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UpdateRecordStateRequestInput src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/DeleteRequestInput.cs:16 — NamedType UpdateRecordStateRequestInput — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
+ 10 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 6 more in this group — see findings.md.

AX7 · Slice cohesion · Cross-slice coupling · ×27

Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/ITokenService.cs:10 — `ITokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:20 — `TokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:22 — `TokenService` (slice 'Auth') depends on `IUserService` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users REDACTED:98 — `ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Roles REDACTED:99 — `ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users REDACTED:153 — `ExternalAuth` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users REDACTED:18 — `Login` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Auth → Users REDACTED:24 — `RefreshToken` (slice 'Auth') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Roles → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:13 — `ApplicationRole` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Roles → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:32 — `ApplicationRole` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Roles → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9 — `ApplicationRoleClaim` (slice 'Roles') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Roles src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:24 — `DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:25 — `DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:54 — `DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Roles src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:66 — `DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationRoleClaim` from slice 'Roles'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:145 — `DataSeedService` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUserRole` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users REDACTED:27 — `DeleteTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users REDACTED:36 — `UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `SeedDataConstants` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users REDACTED:98 — `UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `ApplicationUser` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Tenants → Users REDACTED:99 — `UpdateTenant` (slice 'Tenants') depends on `IUserMutationService` from slice 'Users'.
Cross-slice coupling: Users → Roles src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserRole.cs:20 — `ApplicationUserRole` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'.
Cross-slice coupling: Users → Roles src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/UserMutationService.cs:18 — `UserMutationService` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'.
Cross-slice coupling: Users → Tenants src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/UserMutationService.cs:126 — `UserMutationService` (slice 'Users') depends on `Tenant` from slice 'Tenants'.
Cross-slice coupling: Users → Tenants REDACTED:39 — `SeedDataConstants` (slice 'Users') depends on `Tenant` from slice 'Tenants'.
Cross-slice coupling: Users → Roles REDACTED:53 — `UserService` (slice 'Users') depends on `ApplicationRole` from slice 'Roles'.
+ 2 more in this group — see findings.md.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×27

Async method without CancellationToken: ClearCacheAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:8 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetCachedPermissionsAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:83 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: CacheAuthTokens src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:136 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GenerateTokensAndUpdateUser src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:31 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GenerateTokensAndUpdateUser src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs:42 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExchangeCodeForTokensAsync REDACTED:45 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetUserInfoAsync REDACTED:78 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteAsync REDACTED:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetByIdAsync REDACTED:19 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: SeedBasicData src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:27 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteAsync REDACTED:18 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ChangePasswordAsync src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ChangePassword.cs:23 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteAsync REDACTED:20 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ForgotPasswordAsync src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ForgotPassword.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Find src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/Tenants/TenantFinderService.cs:13 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: SendMessageAsync REDACTED:13 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnThemeChanged src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Brand/Logo.razor.cs:99 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetListAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Roles.razor.cs:29 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateRole src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Roles.razor.cs:54 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteRole src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Roles.razor.cs:65 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetListAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Tenants/Tenants.razor.cs:35 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetListAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Users.razor.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateUser src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Users.razor.cs:62 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteUser src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Users.razor.cs:73 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: LogoutAsync src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthenticationService.cs:20 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
+ 2 more in this group — see findings.md.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken · ×12

Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:89 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:96 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:169 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:60 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:39 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:46 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:17 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ChangePassword.cs:74 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) REDACTED:58 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ForgotPassword.cs:62 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs:60 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.
Async endpoint handler without CancellationToken: (lambda) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ResetPassword.cs:48 — This endpoint's handler takes no CancellationToken, while it calls something that takes one — a client that disconnects leaves that work running. Add a `CancellationToken` parameter (minimal APIs bind it to the request's) and pass it on.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Fake-async · ×4

Fake-async — async method never awaits REDACTED:27 — `GetAppInfoAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
Fake-async — async method never awaits src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor.cs:38 — `OnAfterRenderAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
Fake-async — async method never awaits src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/Notifications.razor.cs:12 — `OnInitializedAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
Fake-async — async method never awaits src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:121 — `ParseApiErrorAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.

ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×3

Non-idempotent mutation: Roles.Handler.UpdatePermissionsAsync REDACTED:21 — `Roles.Handler.UpdatePermissionsAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
Non-idempotent mutation: Users.Handler.CreateAsync REDACTED:16 — `Users.Handler.CreateAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save one hop away, in UserMutationService.CreateAsync) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
Non-idempotent mutation: Users.Handler.ForgotPasswordAsync src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/ForgotPassword.cs:22 — `Users.Handler.ForgotPasswordAsync` mutates persistent state (a repository write one hop away, in JobService.EnqueueAsync) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×2

Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED:26 — REDACTED changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in Handler.UpdateAsync at line 26. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 11:41:03 +05:45' --until='2026-09-30 11:41:03 +05:45' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs:34 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in CorsConfiguration.IsOriginAllowed at line 34. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 11:41:03 +05:45' --until='2026-09-30 11:41:03 +05:45' --full-history --no-merges -- src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Configuration/CorsConfiguration.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×2

CommentedOutCode aspire/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:93 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Routes.razor:134 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:34 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:34-46 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:60-72 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/Tenant.cs:7 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/Tenant.cs:7-19 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CurrentTenantDetails.cs:7-19 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:46 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:46-53 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:78-85 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:46` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Roles.razor.cs:87 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Roles.razor.cs:87-94 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Tenants/Tenants.razor.cs:92-99 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:12 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:12-18 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Common/SingleSelectUserDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:12-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:11 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:11-18 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUser.cs:8-14 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:11` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Entities/CommonEntityProperty.cs:46 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Entities/CommonEntityProperty.cs:46-51 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9-14 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserClaim.cs:8-13 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserRole.cs:9-14 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:13 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRole.cs:13-18 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9-14 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserClaim.cs:8-13 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserRole.cs:9-14 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) REDACTED:35 — REDACTED:35-39 | REDACTED:59-63 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/DeleteRequestInputValidator.cs:8 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/DeleteRequestInputValidator.cs:8-12 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Dialogs/DeleteRequestInputValidator.cs:8-12 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/MultiSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:62 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/MultiSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:62-71 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Common/MultiSelectUserDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:62-71 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:51 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/SingleSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:51-60 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Common/SingleSelectUserDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:63-72 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×2

Outbound HTTP without resilience build/Build.cs:144 — `new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).
Outbound HTTP without resilience src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Program.cs:14 — `new HttpClient { BaseAddress = new Uri(builder.HostEnvironment.BaseAddress) }` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×1

Page without a main landmark src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor:4 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This layout renders the routed page body, so it is where the landmark belongs: wrap @Body in <main>.

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Anchor without href · ×1

Anchor without href src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor:182 — An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 28 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Handler.UpdateAsync (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

Handler.UpdateAsync (cyclomatic 23) REDACTED:26 — Handler.UpdateAsync has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1

BarePragmaDisable src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/ApplicationDbContext.cs:21 — #pragma warning disable CS0108, CS0114 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Handler.UpdateAsync (cognitive 29) · ×1

Handler.UpdateAsync (cognitive 29) REDACTED:26 — Handler.UpdateAsync has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Of this number, 28 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DataSeedService.SeedBasicData (cognitive 28) · ×1

DataSeedService.SeedBasicData (cognitive 28) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:27 — DataSeedService.SeedBasicData has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleCallback.OnInitializedAsync (cognitive 25) · ×1

GoogleCallback.OnInitializedAsync (cognitive 25) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Auth/GoogleCallback.razor.cs:12 — GoogleCallback.OnInitializedAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExceptionMiddleware.InvokeAsync (cognitive 24) · ×1

ExceptionMiddleware.InvokeAsync (cognitive 24) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:14 — ExceptionMiddleware.InvokeAsync has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ThemeManager.OnSystemThemeChanged (cognitive 18) · ×1

ThemeManager.OnSystemThemeChanged (cognitive 18) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ThemeManager.cs:57 — ThemeManager.OnSystemThemeChanged has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UIAuthenticationStateProvider.GetClaimsFromJwt (cognitive 16) · ×1

UIAuthenticationStateProvider.GetClaimsFromJwt (cognitive 16) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/UIAuthenticationStateProvider.cs:96 — UIAuthenticationStateProvider.GetClaimsFromJwt has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · The non-generic `Response` type lacks a `Data` property and its `Success` method does not accept a payload. This forces consumers to use `Response<object>` or `Response<string>` for simple success cases without data, or creates a confusing split where generic responses carry data and non-generic ones do not, despite having identical error handling structures. · ×1

The non-generic `Response` type lacks a `Data` property and its `Success` method does not accept a payload. This forces consumers to use `Response<object>` or `Response<string>` for simple success cases without data, or creates a confusing split where generic responses carry data and non-generic ones do not, despite having identical error handling structures. — Add a `Data` property to the non-generic `Response` type (likely as `object?` or `dynamic?`) and update `Success` to accept an optional payload, or deprecate the non-generic `Response` in favor of `Response<object>` or `Response<Unit>`. (signatures: Response<T>.Success(T data, string? message = null) | Response.Success(string? message = null))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous naming in `RouteSegment`. `UserRoles` and `RolePermissions` are compound nouns describing relationships, while `Permissions` is a singular resource noun. It is unclear if `Permissions` refers to the list of all permissions, a specific permission lookup, or the same endpoint as `RolePermissions`. Similarly, `ByRole` is vague compared to `UserRoles`. · ×1

Ambiguous naming in `RouteSegment`. `UserRoles` and `RolePermissions` are compound nouns describing relationships, while `Permissions` is a singular resource noun. It is unclear if `Permissions` refers to the list of all permissions, a specific permission lookup, or the same endpoint as `RolePermissions`. Similarly, `ByRole` is vague compared to `UserRoles`. — Standardize naming to follow a consistent pattern, e.g., `RolePermissions` for role-specific permissions, `UserRoles` for user-role mappings, and rename `Permissions` to `AllPermissions` or `PermissionCatalog` to distinguish it from scoped lookups. (signatures: RouteSegment.UserRoles | RouteSegment.RolePermissions | RouteSegment.Permissions)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (41 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:203 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:203-243 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:248-288 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:203` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:59 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:59-76 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:89-106 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/DataSeedService.cs:59` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 2) REDACTED:63 — REDACTED:63-79 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs:30-49 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:63` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:23 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:23-36 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:62-75 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:23` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:85 — REDACTED:85-96 | REDACTED:53-64 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:85` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–13 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/ApplicationDbContext.cs:46 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/ApplicationDbContext.cs:46-58 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/ApplicationDbContext.cs:72-79 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Persistence/ApplicationDbContext.cs:46` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Roles/Common/ApplicationRoleClaim.cs:9-18 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserClaim.cs:8-17 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUserRole.cs:9-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CommonDtoProperty.cs:7 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CommonDtoProperty.cs:7-17 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CommonDtoProperty.cs:29-40 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) REDACTED:56 — REDACTED:56-67 | REDACTED:43-53 | REDACTED:54-65 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:56` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) REDACTED:87 — REDACTED:87-96 | REDACTED:58-65 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:87` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CurrentTenantDetails.cs:4 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CurrentTenantDetails.cs:4-12 | src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Tenants/TenantDto.cs:6-13 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CurrentTenantDetails.cs:4` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/MultiSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:32 — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/MultiSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:32-40 | src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/Common/MultiSelectUserDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:31-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Roles/Common/MultiSelectRoleDropDownDataGrid.razor.cs:32` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Extensions/RequestExtensions.cs:47 — src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Extensions/RequestExtensions.cs:47-51 | REDACTED:74-78 | REDACTED:120-124 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1

No DR/backup evidence — A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Token validation disabled · ×1

Token validation disabled REDACTED:76 — `ValidateAudience`, `ValidateIssuer`, `ValidateLifetime` are all set to `false`, which means a token minted for a DIFFERENT relying party is accepted here. Any other service that trusts the same issuer can have its tokens replayed against this one, which is precisely what the `Audience` value exists to prevent.

X1 · Async correctness · async void method · ×1

async void method: Submit src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Features/Users/CreateOrUpdateUser.razor.cs:43 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped · Untrusted text written into markup unescaped · ×1

Untrusted text written into markup unescaped src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Notifications/EmailService.cs:14 — `htmlMessage` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×1

Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Services/ApiCallService.cs:162 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded · ×1

Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded REDACTED:86 — This method contradicts itself about `permissions`: line 91 writes `permissions?.Data`, which says `permissions` can be null, but line 86 then dereferences it directly as `permissions.IsError` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `permissions` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `permissions` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.

Minor — 39 finding(s)

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×6

Commented-out code src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Common/Auth/ICurrentUser.cs:13 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code REDACTED:59 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Jobs/JobsConfiguration.cs:20 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:93 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Brand/Logo.razor.cs:13 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/Notifications.razor.cs:16 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×5

Duplicated predicate REDACTED:87 — `(c.FirstName ?? "").ToLower().Contains(filter) || (c.LastName ?? "").ToLower().Contains(filter)` appears character-identically in 2 files — REDACTED, REDACTED. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate REDACTED:74 — `rc.RoleId == role.Id && rc.ClaimType == AppClaimTypes.Permission && rc.IsDeleted == false` appears character-identically in 2 files — REDACTED, src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate REDACTED:69 — `requestInput.Filter.Contains("!=") || requestInput.Filter.Contains("==") || requestInput.Filter.Contains(".Contains(") || requestInput.Filte…` appears character-identically in 3 files — REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/ServerAuthApiService.cs:64 — `response is not { IsError: false, Data: not null } || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(response.Data.Token) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(response.D…` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthTokenService.cs, src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/ServerAuthApiService.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate REDACTED:69 — `userRoles.Contains(r.Name!) && r.IsDeleted == false` appears character-identically in 2 files — REDACTED, src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/GetUserPermissions.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×4

README/code drift README.md:100 — README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift README.md:30 — README.md runs `dotnet run --project aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj`, but `aspire/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost/MyApp.Aspire.AppHost.csproj` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/url-configuration.md:164 — docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `RemoteHostUrl`, but no code or configuration file names `RemoteHostUrl`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/url-configuration.md:168 — docs/url-configuration.md documents the setting `AllowedCorsDomains`, but no code or configuration file names `AllowedCorsDomains`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×4

No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No security response headers detected REDACTED:11 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Program.cs:13 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected REDACTED:11 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.

C3 · Audit Trail · Partial audit-trail evidence · ×1

Partial audit-trail evidence — An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.

C4 · Data Retention · Partial data-retention evidence · ×1

Partial data-retention evidence — A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob), a documented retention period / data-expiry.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthStorageServiceServer.cs:224 — "Convert to long" — delete - duplicate of Parse(refreshTokenExpiryDateString) restatement

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 12 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.3/10. The most over is `AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend` (4156 LoC, 136 public types across 28 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Placeholder data left in code · ×1

Placeholder data left in code REDACTED:26 — A placeholder e-mail address ("admin@example.com") is still in shipped code — its domain is reserved for documentation, so anything sent here is undeliverable by construction. Replace it with the real address, or take it from configuration.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Empty method body · ×1

Empty method body src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Common/Components/Layout/Notifications.razor.cs:14 — `OnOpen` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 58/58 types (100%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 7/9 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 9, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

P2 · Observability · Console output used as the logging channel · ×1

Console output used as the logging channel src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/SignalR/SignalRService.cs:69 — `src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/SignalR/SignalRService.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 69 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1

No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP · ×1

OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/Infrastructure/Auth/ConfigureBlazorJwtBearerOptions.cs:29 — `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 57/124 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.

X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×1

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Web/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:30 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1

Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 9/11 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1

Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~1.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 78 suppression(s) across the 70393 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default in catch · ×1

Silent fallback default in catch src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/Infrastructure/Auth/AuthTokenService.cs:24 — `NeedsRefresh` swallows `Exception` into `return true;` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the failure or let validation throw.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×8

XML-doc coverage: _build build/_build.csproj — _build: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults aspire/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults/AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.Aspire.ServiceDefaults: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web src-single/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web: 21 % XML-doc coverage (8/38).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend: 2 % XML-doc coverage (8/411).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/320).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.Client: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/274).
XML-doc coverage: AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web src/UI/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web/AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web.csproj — AditiKraft.Krafter.UI.Web: 21 % XML-doc coverage (8/38).

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts.csproj:1 — AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts: abstractness 0.05, instability 0.00, distance 0.95 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-3f9db9aec93c4411b7279825cca57bc4/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	4	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-3f9db9aec93c4411b7279825cca57bc4/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	3	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	38	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 82 file(s) — `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend.Migrator/ApiDbInitializer.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Errors/AppException.cs`, `src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Auth/Common/TokenService.cs`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+77 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (no readable dependency manifest)	—	none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a16259-d3f8-7615-8a19-af9efb81a09c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 25 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 13 field(s)

GoogleUserInfo.Email REDACTED:27
Tenant.AdminEmail src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Tenants/Common/Tenant.cs:9
SMTPEmailSettings.SenderEmail src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Notifications/SMTPEmailSettings.cs:9
SendEmailRequestInput.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Infrastructure/Notifications/SendEmailRequestInput.cs:5
CurrentTenantDetails.AdminEmail src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/CurrentTenantDetails.cs:9
UserInfo.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/UserInfo.cs:12
TokenRequest.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Auth/TokenRequest.cs:7
CreateOrUpdateTenantRequest.AdminEmail src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Tenants/CreateOrUpdateTenantRequest.cs:11
TenantDto.AdminEmail src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Tenants/TenantDto.cs:10
CreateUserRequest.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/CreateUserRequest.cs:10
ForgotPasswordRequest.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/ForgotPasswordRequest.cs:7
ResetPasswordRequest.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/ResetPasswordRequest.cs:7
UserDto.Email src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/UserDto.cs:10

Name — 10 field(s)

GoogleUserInfo.GivenName REDACTED:30
GoogleUserInfo.FamilyName REDACTED:31
ApplicationUser.FirstName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUser.cs:18
ApplicationUser.LastName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Backend/Features/Users/Common/ApplicationUser.cs:19
UserInfo.FirstName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/UserInfo.cs:6
UserInfo.LastName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Common/Models/UserInfo.cs:8
CreateUserRequest.FirstName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/CreateUserRequest.cs:8
CreateUserRequest.LastName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/CreateUserRequest.cs:9
UserDto.FirstName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/UserDto.cs:8
UserDto.LastName src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/UserDto.cs:9

Phone — 2 field(s)

CreateUserRequest.PhoneNumber src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/CreateUserRequest.cs:12
UserDto.PhoneNumber src/AditiKraft.Krafter.Contracts/Contracts/Users/UserDto.cs:13

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 62% · Adequate · gated by AX7 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 53% · Adequate · gated by M2, M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Adequate · gated by D13, P5, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 65% · Adequate · gated by D29 ·

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 55% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts